Earned value, recovery plan and change request to the donor

Burn rate: 546,000 / 1,200,000 = 45.5% of the budget for 58% of time elapsed (7/12).

EAC if cost performance continues: BAC / CPI = 1,200,000 × 546,000 / 499,000 ≈ 1,313,000 EUR (overrun of about 113,000). EAC if the remaining work is done at budgeted cost: AC + (BAC − EV) = 546,000 + 701,000 = 1,247,000 EUR.

Pace: 546,000 / 7 = 78,000 EUR per month so far; 654,000 remains to be spent in 5 months, i.e. 130,800 per month (1.7 times more).

Misleading figures: the CPI of work package 2 (0.80) includes 45,000 EUR of materials in stock. Without them: 120,000 / 105,000 = 1.14, i.e. 700 EUR per completed shelter against 800 in the budget: work package 2 has a schedule problem, not a cost problem. Work package 4, a level-of-effort package, shows a flattering CPI that mainly reflects two vacant posts. The real cost problem is work package 1: 190,000 / 18 = 10,556 EUR per borehole against 8,000.

Internal causes: vacant posts (no engineer to supervise the driller), a single drilling rig, procurement plan with no buffer for the iron sheets. External causes: drop in the water table, increase in hire rates, access to Barsalogho. The low burn rate is not the problem: it is the consequence of the physical delay.

Work package 1: at the current pace (3.6 per month), 18 + 5 × 3.6 = 36 boreholes are reached. For 40, recruit the engineer in M8 and hire a second drilling rig from M9 to M11. Cost of the 22 remaining boreholes: 22 × 10,500 = 231,000, i.e. a work package at 421,000 (+ 101,000).

Work package 2: 240 shelters remain outside Barsalogho: at 50 per month, they are feasible in 5 months. The 210 in Barsalogho: either transfer to accessible sites in Kaya and Pissila whose needs are documented and validated by the cluster, or extension if access reopens.

Sources of savings: work package 2 at 700 instead of 800 per shelter, i.e. 600 × 100 = 60,000 if the trend continues (to be confirmed); work package 4: 23,000 unspent (PV 163,000 − AC 140,000). Total: about 83,000.

Scenario A (recommended): 38 boreholes (20 more × 10,500 = 210,000, work package at 400,000, + 80,000 funded by savings); 600 shelters including 210 relocated, which requires a second construction team (450 shelters in 5 months, i.e. 90 per month); transfer of 80,000, below the 10% threshold (120,000), but the target changes: donor approval mandatory. Scenario B: 40 boreholes, + 101,000: about 18,000 is missing, to be requested from the donor or covered by a justified reduction elsewhere. Scenario C: 2-month no-cost extension if Barsalogho reopens. Request to be submitted in August, well before the 45-day limit (16 November).

Example: "Hello, as of 31 July, the project has spent 546,000 EUR (45.5%) and completed 18 of 40 boreholes and 150 of 600 shelters (schedule index: 0.67). The delay is explained by the drop in the water table, which raises the average cost of a borehole to 10,500 EUR instead of 8,000, a six-week delay on the iron sheets, two vacant posts and the suspension of access to Barsalogho (210 shelters). Measures taken: recruitment of the engineer in August, second drilling rig from September, shelter pace maintained at 50 per month. We propose: (1) to reduce the target to 38 boreholes and transfer 80,000 EUR of savings from work packages 2 and 4 to work package 1; (2) to build the 210 Barsalogho shelters on accessible sites validated by the cluster; (3) to plan a two-month extension if access reopens. We will not seek to accelerate spending without corresponding delivery. A formal request will follow by 15 August. I remain available for a call."

I object. Invoicing and expensing work not carried out during the eligibility period makes the expenditure ineligible; charging vehicles from another project is double funding, tantamount to fraud. The risks: repayment, an adverse audit, lasting damage to the organisation's reputation.

Alternatives: an amendment to the target and transfer, a no-cost extension, or the return of unused funds, which is a normal and accepted outcome. A contractual advance can only be considered if the donor contract allows it, with a bank guarantee, and it is not eligible expenditure until the service is delivered. I put my position in writing and involve the finance manager and compliance.